[Fred]

If you’d like to make a rational judgement, I recommend spending time doing some research beyond creationist literature. The TALKORIGINS archive is a great resource. Here’s an index of responses to a variety of creationist claims:

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

For example, there’s an article addressing the old creationist claim about the eye that you repeated: https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

talkorigins.org

An Index to Creationist Claims

A comprehensive index to creationist claims

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

Thank you !!

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

Thank you !!

I found information showing how all the steps of development, are possible, because they can be observed in nature today, but the problem does not lie in the complexity. Genetic mutation can lead to all kinds of complexity, no doubt about that. The problem is the direct connection between the mutation and improved survival of the individual. Until there is an effect from the mutation, there will be no majority of the gene. It will simply be diluted out and disappear.

Where can i find (if you know of any), information that shows how the mutations, the small steps, gave better survival?

In other words, the individual develop something (spontaneous mutation) – that does not get diluted out, and stays through generations, that then is mutated further, without dying out or being diluted.

A genetic mutation, that does not give an immediate benefit for survival, would just die out and disappear. So why is it that some mutations stick, and can be developed further, even they do not give an immediate benefit for the individuals ability to reproduce of survive?

[Jabberwock]

First of all, it is not true that any mutation that is not beneficial would ‘die out’ – if it is not detrimental to survival, it just may remain in the population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_mutation

As for the evolution of the eye, it most likely started with photosensitivity. For example, some protists are heterotrophic, i.e. they feed by absorbing nearby cells and substances. They have evolved some motile organs, such as flagella. In some organisms the flagellar movements are seemingly random – they just move around, if the environment nutritious enough (i.e. contains enough autotrophs), they can survive. However, some protists have photosensitive flagella – they react to light, so the movement is no longer purely random, but is responsive to the environment. Flagella is simple enough that it is not unreasonable to believe that its photosentitivy is a result of a simple mutation or a combination of several simple neutral mutations with a following beneficial one.

en.wikipedia.org

Neutral mutation - Wikipedia

Neutral mutation - Wikipedia

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

Yes, that was a bad choice in words, i was thinking of the “development” when I said mutation. Like he mutated in to having longer feet, and then i referred to the longer feet as the “mutation”. Sorry about that.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

I follow you, on how it might have started.

My problem is :

how this this development continue, consistently, until there was eyesight? The continuous mutation, must be driven by something, and when we can not base it on reproduction benefits, or survival benefits, what drove it forward?

Like in my example in the beginning, abut the feet of a bird, that is swimming. It is very clear what is driving the development. But it is almost never that obvious. For the most part, i find it completely convoluted what drives the development. Like this example with eyes. I can not see how anything could move the ball up and in to the basket. The complexity is not the point for me. The point is that random mutation, would lead to random stuff in the face. Not eyes.

So for it to become eyes, there must be a need, or benefit, that keeps this development on course, and I can not se what it is?

• This reply was modified 8 months, 1 week ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other).

[Jabberwock]

<div>I do not see the problem.

</div><div>

If you accept that photosensitive elements could appear, then it is sufficient that those elements acquired changes that provided improvement over the previous strucuture.

</div>

[Bob]

Berga: evolution is the consensus of relevant scientists. Rather than debate evolution here, I suggest you read a textbook from an expert.

My suggestion is to start with the consensus–that is, assume it’s correct–while you build your knowledge of biology.

[John]

I guess “relevant” in this case means, ‘those who support’ the theory of evolution? Sort of like the ‘relevant’ scientists supporting man-made global warming or climate change–whatever it’s being referred to these days.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

Seems like you think this is so simple, so why don’t you explain:

What it is that drives the development of a mutation/change forward for an individual, when there is no immediate benefit for survival or reproduction for the individual?

You seem to think that this is so clearly stated in all the text books about this topic, so it should just take you a few seconds to enlighten me.

Thanks –

[Johan]

Your first point about missing transitions is a little misguided. Yes, there are gaps, but there will always be gaps since every species is transitional. Imagine you have a number line:

1…2…3….5….7….11…12….13…14…19….20….25

Look! There are gaps in the line! There are missing transitions between the numbers! Clearly that shows that there isn’t a sequence between the numbers. Unless you have the whole set, you can’t conclude that they are linked together. Where is the transition between 1 and 2? Clearly it’s missing. Do you see how silly that sounds, and how easy it is to say? No matter how complete your line, someone can always say you are missing a transition between any point along it.

• This reply was modified 8 months, 1 week ago by  Johan.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

ok, i get your point. So what is it Darwin was worried about then? He pointed out that some species in the fossil records, seemed to be completely missing, and that they were such large groups that he questioned the entire theory? He did however publish it anyway, but this is recorded directly from him.

So how am I to understand this then? Or are you saying that Darwin’s own reservations, should just be ignored completely?

[Johan]

I don’t think that Darwin had the reservations that you think he had. Do you have a reference I could look up? I tried to skim the book, but there was too many instances of the word fossil for me to find it.

Besides that, Darwin lived and wrote a long time ago, much has changed in our collection and understanding of fossils since then. Why ought we consider what Darwin thought about the lack of fossils then to be a problem for us now that we have a massive amount of them? (and now that we have genetic evidence that is even stronger.)

This article might prove interesting:
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-008-0105-0

evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com

Darwin’s “Extreme” Imperfection? - Evolution: Education and Outreach

Darwin’s “Extreme” Imperfection? - Evolution: Education and Outreach

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

Thanks,

I think it is in a letter or something? Or a foreword? Not in the book, but something he wrote beside the book. I would have to look around to find it, I just remember reading it – and it always made me think of the fossil records, and something about “cambrian explotion” or something sounding similar ? I don’t remember. It could have been something that came out in connection to publishing of the book. There is something about an editor in the back of my mind somewhere, but I cant dig it out right now.

But back to the topic: thanks for the link, it was interesting (not done reading it yet).

My main point is this: why did life on earth, start to develop 4 billion years ago, and then stop to “start to develop” ?

You get my point? If it started 4 billion years ago, why did it then continue to evolve, from a first life, in stead of continuing to start, over and over every day? We should have had trillions of life starting all the time, all over the place. But insted – all lifeforms started 4 billion years ago.

Don’t you se, how that seems very crazy? If conditions on earth, is perfect for origin of life, did it then change, so that origin of life is no longer possible on earth anymore? Because life does not start from nothing anymore. It have not started from nothing for 4 billion years.

And – to my point about the fossils. If ever everything evolved from an early life form, we would have had fossils of many STARTING life forms, and chains up until today, and not just ONE.

The fact that science claim to have just one line of evolution, indicated that life was places on heart, ONCE, and does not form spontaneous, from conditions on earth.

[Johan]

That’s fair, but if you cant find the citation, I can’t really say anything about it.

I just want to point out that you completely switched gears here to a different topic altogether. You started by asking about fossils and transitional forms, but now you are talking about the origin of life. Those are vastly different topics.

But having acknowledged that, I will try to respond to your question. When it comes to origin of life research, I admittedly don’t know as much as I should, nor as much as I know about evolution. I would recommend a youtube channel called “professor Dave explains”, but even some of what he said goes over my head, so it might be a little hard to digest (he can also be intentionally abrasive to creationists, so you might find that to be a turn off).

When it comes to life originating, we don’t know how rare the initial event was, nor do we know if it did happen multiple times over its inception. I would hazard to guess that it did happen multiple times, and the result of the multiple strains of life competing with each other for resources caused only the best adapted to reproduce and live on to diversify (natural selection).

As to why it doesn’t happen to day, you ask “did it then change?”. Yes of course it has changed =) . We have life currently on the planet for one thing. Any life that was attempting to start up now would have to compete with the already existent life for resources. It would be like someone creating a reproduction ford model T today and wondering why they get no market share. Or someone trying to duplicate one of those room sized computers that used vacuum tubes, and wondering why it isn’t selling. Modern life has had millions / billions of years to grow and adapt, so there would be next to no space for anything else to compete. (besides that, the temperature and chemical composition of both the water and air has changed drastically on the planet in the past few billion years).

I don’t understand your final point about fossils here? You recognize that microorganisms or organisms that don’t have a solid skeletal structure, don’t tend to fossilize, right? Why would we expect to see fossils from those generations. We also say that we have a common ancestor because that is what the DNA points to. From what I understand there are some genes that literally all living life that we have studied so far share. This strongly points to the fact that we inherited those genes.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

Ok, so the incomplete fossil records, is due to partly species being soft etc and partly because they lived in places where there was no condition for fossils to form. And that is fear enough.

My problem then, is just the lack of other life, originating from other startups of life on earth, that we can not seem to find in any of the fossils at all. We only have fossils from one single startup, from 4 billion years ago, and that seems very strange to me. Because, as i pointed out in other messages, life should have orriginated many times, if it happend from condtioions that sustain life.

But from what I understand, you explain this – by saying that the conditions to sustain life, is not the same as conditions to form life. And that earth, no longer has, and has not had conditions to form life for millions of years – therefor, only one line of species.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

https://www.godreports.com/2019/08/renowned-yale-computer-scientist-says-darwin-got-it-wrong/

This article refers to the same material –

godreports.com

Renowned Yale computer scientist says Darwin got it wrong | God Reports

David Gelernter has been called one of the most brilliant and visionary computer scientists of our time. Now the fiercely independent professor has shocked his contemporaries by rejecting Darwinian evolution.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

Darwin was talking about something called : Cambrian explosion 500 million years ago.

I have it from Darwin himself, like I said, but I still can not find it, but this article above is referring to the same material.

[Johan]

If you can find the quote from Darwin, that would be great. I am really confused why you are citing a computer scientist rather than a biologist, but I’ll try to work with what you provided.

“” While he acknowledges that “Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether he can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones.” “”

According to the article, the person quoted accepts that Darwin successfully explained evolution. The only difference between a change to fur density and a change in species is a sufficient number of small changes piling up. It is like saying someone explained how you can take one or two steps, but did not explain how you can walk around the block. Micro evolution is a grain of sand, and macro evolution is simply the pile of grains. There is a point where a sufficient number of grains of sand suddenly becomes a pile of sand, and likewise, there is a point where a sufficient number of small changes adds up to result in a different species.

I will ask you the same thing I ask everyone:

It sounds like there is some wall where changes must stop according to you. What is that wall, how does it work, and how do you know it is there?

It also seems that now you are switching course yet again away from discussion on abiogenesis (the origin of life), to the Cambrian explosion. I wish you would really stick to one area and discuss it until we reach a resolution. Having to jump around so much is difficult. I don’t know enough about that part of history though, so I will pass along some articles instead if you are interested. The short of it is that biologists understand the Cambrian explosion and it isn’t a mystery to them anymore.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

talkorigins.org

CC300: Cambrian Explosion

CC300: Cambrian Explosion

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

In my notes, I have written that Darwin said, in the origin of species, that the Cambrian explosion what inexplicable on his view on the origin of life. He then said that his theory therefor – would only be possible, if we found a lot more fossisl. And we have never found those, quite the opposite. So it is in there somewhere. I can not find my other source, sorry.

So to start with Darwin:

Evolution – natural selection – controls “spontaneous” mutations, that are directly linked to an effect, that in turn give the individual an immediate advantage – either for its survival or its ability to multiply. So that this individual gets to multiply more than the other individuals – spreading this advantage to his/her offspring. What we can call a fine tuning of species if you will.

This is ALL that Darwin discovered, and all that his material can be used for. And he was of course correct about this part. To use it for the origin of species, is on the other hand completely impossible. But the information to prove this, was not available at Darwins time.

This is something science have discovered over the last 20 to 30 years, and we can now see that what he suggested has a chance of 1 to the power of 77 to succeed. And that my friend, is such a small chance that, we can safely say that it is impossible. Even when we have 4,5 billion years of trying. Even if you add in all the individuals of all lifeforms that ever existed.

Darwin did not make this analysis when he was alive, he could easilly have done the math, had he know all about biology that we know today. So, science is stuck in some sort of religious angst, where we can not admit that we were completely wrong, and I suspect this is because the alternative is that the religious people will come “houling” about God, claiming that they were right all along – witch they definitely were NOT.

Just because Darwin was wrong, does not mean that christians are correct. They are in my opinion both wrong.

Just to clarify these facts about the Cambrian explosion first:

Darwin said that he felt future fossil finds would fill in the missing ancestral forms – but what happend in the Cambrian explotion was that there was a huge number of what is called “animal body plants”, and this is a unique configuration of body part and tissues, that arrives verry abruptly in the fossile records without discernible connection to earlier precursors or ancestors in the pre-cambrian record. So the question is where did they come from ?

So immagine that you are standing in a canyon, looking at a wall, where you see a layer of these fossils, a stripe along the wall of them – but in the layer under them, you have something that they can not have originated from.

This breaks the theory of Darwin completely, and it is not just a gap in a sequense, like other posters have said in other parts of this debate earlier. There is no origin, for these species, and that is the entire logic in darwins theory, that all has an origin. Only that some species just do not have any. So to use this a fact, is mildly put, just ridiculous.

many scientists have tried to explain this away, by claiming that some species have soft tissue etc, but this does not work, similar to how a jelly fish can not be the grandfather of a turtle. You need an explanation for the hard bone like structure covering it. So the pre-Cambrian species, must have had some similarity with the Cambrian species – and there is NOTHING at all.

Therefor, Darwin himself, worded this reservation: stating that the Cambrian explosion what inexplicable on his view on the origin of life.

On a global scale, when seen in connection to all the rest that has happened and the time it takes, the Cambrian explotion happened extremely abruptly geologically, but it was also extremely abrupt biologically. There is a mathematicall bransh of darwinian theory that is called population genetics, that allows us to calculate how much evolutionary change we must expect in a given amount of time, if we know things like the mutation rate, the generation time, the population size and so on.

In short, 70 million years, is a blink of an eye, in terms of the calculations of what is called waiting times. And the amount of change that must have happened from the pri-camrian to the cambrian period, is therefor so extreme, that it becomes completely impossible. So it is not just the lack of fossils that are the problem, but that the change from the pre-cambrian layer, to the cambrian layer, is so extreme, that there is not enough year in this period for it to have followed any form of natural selection, type og evolution. It is like going from jellyfish to turtle in a week.

It is possible, to go from jelly fish to turtle, obviously, but science today, is able to make some calculations as to how long this must have taken – and therefor, the Cambrian explosion, proves that Darwin was wrong. It is physically impossible, because 70 million years (the most generous estimate) of the length of the Cambrian period, is just a blink of an eye, compared to the time that would be needed. Besides, new science estimate the Cambrian period to have been much shorter, and I have read estimates of only 5 million year. What would be required, is billions of years – and some calculations show that it is even difficult to fit it in to the existence of earth.

[Johan]

You keep jumping around a bit from topic to topic. Do you want to focus on the Cambrian explosion? Did you read any of the links I included before? If I explain the Cambrian explosion to your satisfaction would that change your view on evolution?

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

But the main problem for Darwin, is molecular biology.

Many biologist agree that generating a new shape of protein, is the essence of creating a new form of life. So inventing a new protein, means inventing a new gene.

So, if you want to make a computer program do something new, you have to give it new code. And the big discovery in biology in 20th century biology, what is now called molecular biological revolution, is the same thing that is true in life, you have to have information to build the protein molecules. You need the information to put together the DNA sequence, and other forms of information.

So you need the information to build the protein molecules that service the different types of cells, and additional information to arrange the cells in to the body plants.

We can say that the Cambrian explotion is an explotion of biological form, but it is allo an explosion of biological information. Ant that gives us something that Darwin did not have.

This give us something today, that we can use to deal with these issues, in our time of digital computing – because DNA is just like binary information.

Now when we look at how complex all this information is, how large it is, we can calculate some probability of a random and spontaneous mutation, that is not directed by a creating force, to accidentally put the information in the correct sequence to form something that is healthy and functions.

So lets say you have a DNA sequence, that is working just fine, and then you change some of it, to form a new species.

Anybody that believes Darwin was correct, does not understand what this actually mean.

To simplify it extremely, take a sentence: “I am very happy to be born on earth.” and then you randomly change some of the letters, forming a sentence that also works, and i spelled correctly. What is the change of that happening? The chance is so small that we safely can call is null.

Now DNA, is the same, on a much bigger scale, so the chance is extremely much smaller.

Now if every you get a DNA sequence, that formed longer legs, and those legs are usable, did you put them on the head, or inside the stomack? You see, DNA, is not just to be lucky with forming a feature of the animal, you must make it the right size, place it in the correct area of the animal.

So, what Darwin talked about in his book, has NOTHING TO DO WITH how molecular biology what so ever, and claiming that his theory has anything to do with origin of the species, is just stupid.

What ever the origin of the species are, the answers are to be found in molecular biology, not in natural selection, or anything Darwin talked about.

[Johan]

Sorry for the late reply, I wasn’t notified of the reply.

You are jumping to another topic again. I want to focus this down to one area at a time please.

Your analogy with computers doesn’t really work though. Are you aware of how genetic algorithms work in AI? It creates new novel software functions with zero new user input. It creates random outputs and then weights and changes them based on the desired input, slowly refining the output to match the desired result. This happens with no additional user input and is built off randomness.

“<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>Anybody that believes Darwin was correct, does not understand what this actually mean.”</font>

<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>I understand what it means just fine. Also note, evolution does not happen in individuals but rather in populations. No child is ever a different species from its parent, but relatives that are very distant in isolated populations might loose the ability to interbreed which we would then </font>classify<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> as a distinct species.

“</font><font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>So, what Darwin talked about in his book, has NOTHING TO DO WITH how molecular biology”</font>

<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>Not directly, no. Darwin knew nothing of molecular biology, the field had not been created yet. That is like saying </font>Isaac<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> Newton knew nothing of relativity. What Darwin found was that natural selection was a </font>surprisingly<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> elegant mechanism to explain the vast diversity of life. He didn’t know anything about the mechanisms that it was working on, or how it worked in the background, but he observed the effects of it in the world.

The fact that this seems so obvious to most of us know, is what makes it all the more surprising that it took us hundreds of years to recognize it.</font>

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

Many scientific studies have been performed, to find the probability of forming proteins.

One result, for just a very short one, only 140 amino acids, the ratio for forming a functional protein, and not a garbage one, is a chance of 1 to 10 to the power of 77.

I don’t have enough space to even write that number in this text box, so the chances are so ridiculously small, that natural selection is way beyond ridiculous.

[Mammal]

As I wrote elsewhere, this gap for God no longer exists. What was previously thought of as improbable, is no longer. If it can happen, it will, even it takes quantum tunneling.

Select “Applications” in the link below and in the second paragraph it refutes your kind of objection.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_biology

en.m.wikipedia.org

Quantum biology - Wikipedia

Quantum biology - Wikipedia

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

It seems like you are answering another question, or in some way talking about something else in this post? Maybe if you read all the posts in the thread? It might be out of order or something, because i might have clicked on the wrong reply button. Not used to this forum design yet.

[Mammal]

I was answering you claim about probability of forming proteins being so small that you made in your post that I responded to.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

ok, so what does you link to quantum biology have to do with it?

[Mammal]

Read your own 2nd par of that post, then read my response and the part of the article that I specifically directed you towards.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

ok, thanks – will do

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

So – i therefor asked in this thread : what is the driving force, that makes this happen? Because by observing natural selection, there is no connection between the individuals ability to survive, nor multiply.

But do not just through out another simplistic reply, without reading this thread, because I have given some important facts already.

Thanks –

[Fred]

“what is the driving force, that makes this happen? Because by observing natural selection, there is no connection between the individuals ability to survive, nor multiply.”

It is gene pools that evolve over time. At any point in time, the gene pool consists of all the genes among the entire breeding population of organisms. Genes that have a negative impact on survival of an organism will not have the opportunity to be duplicated. Genes that have a positive impact will proliferate because the organisms will have more opportunity to create offspring. When sub-populations get isolated from the broader population, their gene pool begins to evolve independently. Over time, the changes add up to the point that the organisms produced in this isolated gene pool can no longer successfully procreate with members of other sub-populations. At this point, they can be considered distinct species.

*edit* I forgot to mention genetic drift. Most individual genetic mutations have no direct effect on the survival of the organism. Such mutations may either proliferate, or die out, by chance. But this process still drives changes to the gene pool over time (the process is called “genetic drift”). The process can also add diversity to the gene pool, a diversity that may eventually provide a survival benefit to a subset of the population as the environment changes.

• This reply was modified 8 months ago by  Fred.

[Poul]

@Saved insists that he is not a Christian (despite his chosen moniker), yet he attacks evolution with precisely the arguments of Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt. While Meyer admits to being a Christian, he tries very hard to pretend that the Discovery Institute and its “Center for Science and Culture” really does care about science and that it isn’t all about preaching creationism.

Is @Saved dishonest? Is Stephen Meyer? It should not take a minute for anyone to realise that

• either has every member of every species had ancestors all the way back to the single-cellular first life forms of which little is known for obvious reasons.
• or some ancestor of every member of every species that ever lived, bacteria included, must have been created by you know Who.

It’s no secret that I hold the first possibility to be the more likely history. And yes, it is conceivable that some species evolved while others were created, but I don’t see anyone telling that story.

So, I wonder, why the dishonesty? Does @Saved and Stephen Meyer imagine that they can convince anyone who doesn’t already believe in the almighty?

• This reply was modified 8 months ago by  Poul. Reason: Grammer
• This reply was modified 8 months ago by  Poul.
• This reply was modified 8 months ago by  Poul. Reason: bacteria included

[Johan]

“And yes, it is conceivable that some species evolved while others were created, but I don’t see anyone telling that story.”

I personally don’t go down that road because merely being conceivable is not the same as being probable, or even plausible.

The DI wrongly believes that it is a dichotomy. Either God created everything, or evolution is true. They don’t see the fallacy in that reasoning. They don’t see it is a false dichotomy. To pull a quote from a podcast I listen to “You could come into my house, and demonstrate for 100% certain that my TV is broken and will never work again, but that alone does nothing to establish that your TV at your house works perfectly fine. You still have all your work ahead of you if you want to convince me that your TV works” (paraphrased)

This is the problem with “creation vs evolution”, it is not an either or discussion, they are merely 2 of the myriad of options out there. This fact makes me wonder why creationists try so hard to disprove evolution rather than proving creation. They think that somehow they will win by default if the other side has been shown to be wrong, and that is simply not how this works. That simply is not how any of this works.

[Poul]

Are you saying that God created everything, but evolution is true? I would disagree. It is a dichotomy. Either you are a creationist or you hold evolution to be true. What’s the third option?

[jayceeii]

God initiated and guides evolution.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

Or, God initiated evolution, but is not guiding it. It is a free process that leads to death and decay, all in the spirit of free will.

Just like stated in the Bible – if one reads it in a none-literal way.

Adam and Eve eat from the tree of life, and started the process. We (humans) rejected by this act, God’s orders, and his perfect design and will.

We were put on earth at this point, and this was the start of evolution on earth, without gods guidance over the process. Which leads to death, parasites, and other nasty things … evil and more.

Evil on earth, is God removing himself from us, not something he made for us. It is nature on its own, without God.

It is stated in the Bible, that this event, effected animals, not just humans. God removed himself from all of this creation. Not just the humans. It is for example explicitly stated, that the snake was directly effected and cast out as well.

Like you would never get a sky-scraper to stand 400 meters tall, if you did not have engineers with experience – but you would perfectly well be able to build all kinds of houses.

The world now had to evolve on its own, based on the principles of evolution – and no longer Gods direct guidance and control. So evolution is something we can only undertand partly, it explains the changes in species but not how they were made.

And the results are obvious in everything we see around us. Evolution leads to decay, parasites that eat other organisms from the inside. Nasty, nasty stuff – where the desire for own survival, egocentric forces rules – and other values ans rules are set aside. Because God removed himself.

One can look at Jesus that came in to the picture 2k year ago, with the claim that love can effect these forces of nature directly. Even control life and death of an organism. The claim is that he even brought dead people back to life. But the point is simply – that life, with God, is a very different thing, than life without God. Without god, it is pure selfish process of survival of the fittest. No mercy, no consideration, no love – nothing. But if God does not keep himself away, there is a force in this process, that leads to other development / evolution than the darvinism vi are told to believe in.

God created the species – they then were abandoned – to struggle on their own, because they rejected God. Evolutions does not prove that God does not exist, and it does not mean that evolution made the species. The evil in the world, the paracites that eat organism in a grusome way, does not prove that God does not exist. The claim by chirstians is that God removed himself – and we see very clear evidence of this in nature.

All the decay, evil, and nasty stuff, just means that evolution it is no longer guided. But there is evidence of something that created all of it, and then must have removed itself, because random and heartless evolution took over.

God left, we are on our own. (As stated in the Bible)

Now, just because I say it is stated in the bible, does not make the bible my source. Its quite opposite. I’m saying that the Bible should be considered as human experience with some value on these topics, because they actually did understand these things, also way back then. So it is wrong and ignorant to dismiss stuff from the bible as completely baseless. Although my source is exclusively modern science.

People seem to have worked very hard on understanding these things back in the days, and I think they were actually on to something. Just because “religions” kind of destroyed most of it, does not mean that these old scriptures are not a collection of honest struggles and efforts, just like our other philosophers etc.

This is in a way the same problem we face with atheism, where science is not really objective, because it works on the premise that God does not exist, and is not actually open to all things that are not proven. Had it been truly objective, God would be just as likely as anything else, yet, God is ruled out.

[jayceeii]

@saved

I’ve been watching your mind, and you have not understood the argument against the appearance of whole genes through evolution. “God” is dead to you, and seemingly under your control. And there isn’t an easy step until you would see that God is a Living Being. You can try to rearrange your thoughts and perhaps submit to instruction though this is virtually impossible to expect. Still underneath it all you are thinking you made yourself.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

I’ve been watching your mind, and you have not understood the argument 
against the appearance of whole genes through evolution. 

I hear you, and you might very well be correct. But I’m not sure I understand what it is that I have not understood? Can you explain?

“God” is dead to you, and seemingly under your control. And there isn’t an easy step until you would see that God is a Living Being. You can try to rearrange
 your thoughts and perhaps submit to instruction though this is 
virtually impossible to expect. Still underneath it all you are thinking
 you made yourself.

This part I don’t understand at all. Can you explain further?

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

@Poul

@Saved  insists that he is not a Christian (despite his chosen moniker), yet he  attacks evolution with precisely the arguments of Stephen Meyer’s book  Darwin’s Doubt. While Meyer admits to being a Christian, he tries very  hard to pretend that the Discovery Institute and its “Center for Science  and Culture” really does care about science and that it isn’t all about  preaching creationism.

Is @Saved dishonest? Is Stephen Meyer? It should not take a minute for anyone to realise that 

It is very strange to me, that you seem to think that everybody that believes in God, MUST be a christian, and if they say that they are not, they MUST be dis-honest.

And unfortunately, it seems like your other arguments follow the same, lack of need, for substance.

When ever one concludes without any desire to look deeper into the matter at hand, one is very likely to waste everybody’s time. Especially ones own. Likewise, when one concludes without good will.

So, I wonder, why the dishonesty? Does @Saved and Stephen Meyer imagine that they can convince anyone who doesn’t already believe in the almighty?

You simply just claim to know this, in your head – obviously – without having anything what so ever to base it on.

Just some sort of gut-feeling. Ant to base accusations of this type on gut-feelings, is generally not a very good idea. You embarrass yourself, actually.

But I can answer you anyway – and the answer is, that I must make a very clear distinction between myself and chirstians, so that you and others, do not blame christians for what I am saying.

I do not consider the Bible to be the word of God. I do not believe in Jesus, the way most christians do – and therefor, cannot call myself a christian. I do, however, believe there is a God – and share a lot of the same values that christians hold dear. I am not directly against anything christians say about Jesus, I just don’t se that there is any evidence for it, and therefore, stick with what has evidence, and that is God alone.

I call myself saved, as a play on words that does not translate well in to english. I am saved from “man made religion”, which I consider the evil of the world. Atheism being one of them.

This blind belief – with no evidence what so ever, that life came from nothing, that evolution is the origin of life from dust particles or what ever, is just nothing but blind faith in something that there is absolutely no evidence for at all.

Sure, people say that atheism is not a religion, but that is just a childish play on words, because it is an organized belief in the origin of humans, where you lack scientific evidence for it – and therefor must grab on to a blind belief, based on something other people have told you – and not something you have seen yourself.

And this is the very difinition of religion. An explanation for the origion of life, that you can not see yourself. You must take the word of others for it – where those people have no evidence what so ever.

So If you are an atheist, you have rejected stuff without evidence, and you have believed stuff without evidence, and both is synonym with religion. And I am, thank God, saved from this – as I am not atheist, nor cristian, nor muslim etc I simply believe in what I see – and that is God.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other).
• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other).

[Poul]

Well, @Saved, if you don’t believe in the Genesis story, and you don’t believe in evolution, you need to come up with a different origin of womankind story.

[Mammal]

@Poul : I think you misunderstood @saved. In @saved response to @jayceeii the gist of it is that evolution proves God abondened nature after the fall in Genesis..seemingly because evolution cannot account for the origin of life. And God is kinda missing in all this.

It is obviously just another guise of God of Gaps, but that is what @saved argues.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

@Mammal

It is obviously just another guise of God of Gaps, but that is what @saved argues.

I am NOT making a God of the Gaps argument. This is completely false !

You are the one making “Life of the gaps” arguments ! You have no evidence what so ever, that any life has ever “started” on earth. All you have are gaps !

At least what theist are saying, can be duplicated. We can take an inteligent mind, and have it create something any time you ask. Now if we ask you to take some dead dust, and have it create life – you will fail every time you try. See the difference?

And until today, no scientist have ever been able to. That is not God in the gaps – that is a huge gap i logic, scientific evidence, and facts. Yet you, believe it anyway.

But to be clear – I am not saying that God created life on earth. I have no clue where Life came from, and it seem to have existed for ever. It could be God. LIfe it self, can even be what God is. I have no idea – and that is reality. Yet you think you know something. And that knowledge you claim to have, is nothing but gaps.

There is NO EVIDENCE to support that life have ever “popt in to existence” !! NOTHING AT ALL !! And just to clarify this now, before you twist it around, I have never said that this proves God.

God seems more plausible, in its own right. Because everything we know of complex constructions, is that is is created by a mind. NOT GOD IN THE GAPS, but a mind !!!

I have pointed this out before. At least read what I write before you reply.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

@Poul

Well, @Saved,
 if you don’t believe in the Genesis story, and you don’t believe in 
evolution, you need to come up with a different origin of womankind 
story.

For crying out loud, (for the possible 50’eth time) I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION !!!

BUT, you must have something already, for it to EVOLVE.

I am aware that you are not alone, pretending that evolution does not mean evolution – but this is false. Evolution, either refers to how stuff that already exist, change – or it is used as a label for Darwin’s theory. But Darwin never explained the origin of life on earth. Darwin merely made a theory that gave us a big question – if life evolve, then how did this first life start? And then OTHERS came up with this theory that life originated by itself from nothing. Long after Darwin’s death !

The next thing, that you seem to miss completely, is that I believe there is a God, and that life is eternal. It has always existed, just like stuff of the universe have always existed.

It is completely ridiculous that life started by itself, in some very hot mud or what ever. And there is no evidence for it, and the fact that people believe in this, when there is NO EVIDENCE for it, is to me ridiculous. If this was true, it should have been very easy for science to duplicate the origin of life in a lab. But what we know is, that all we can do, is manipulate something that already exist. JUST LIKE EVOLUTION. Changes to already existing life.

But I definitely do not believe that the Bible is the word of God. Christianity is a religion made by humans. Not that I have any problems with chirstianity, I believe it is very good, and might be inspired by people that were “close to God”. Something I have no evidence of, but it is possible. And just like everything else created by man, christianity, along with other religions, has issues.

But the most absurd “faith” of the world today, is the one shared by most people calling themselves atheist. Most of them, believe in stuff that is far more ridiculous than most religions ever invented.

They have replaced God with a theory, that life came from nothing by itself. And they have not supported it with any evidence what so ever. It is believed, because it is all they have to dispute God. So the argument is: “we have no other explanation for it – therefor what we think must be true” and if that is not stupid, then what is?

[Mammal]

@saved : In response to your reply to my post re your God of the gaps position. You basically admitted it in your own words. We don’t yet know how life started – gap in our knowledge – into which you insert God. You argue only an “intelligent mind” can do something like that. Then you go on about science having never demonstrated anything. Well.. neither have we ever seen intelligent minds creating life.. so there is that.

Science has demonstrated that the building blocks of life can come into existence by virtue of natural processes, fwiw totally exotic matter has been created by controlling quantum effects. So by now we know that this is how particles, molecules, atoms are formed. We also know some very extraordinary chemical reactions are driven by quantum tunneling. So if we reduce life to its building blocks, we are able to deduce that a range of natural processes probably started all that.

I substantiate the above with this: https://phys.org/news/2023-10-theory-physics-biology-evolution-complexity.html

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Mammal.

phys.org

New 'assembly theory' unifies physics and biology to explain evolution and complexity

An international team of researchers has developed a new theoretical framework that bridges physics and biology to provide a unified approach for understanding how complexity and evolution emerge in nature.

[Mammal]

Let me add something to my previous post as I am expecting @saved to react re scientists having created exotic matter by quantum means along the lines of see, you need intelligent minds.. Which would be the stock response from theists when scientists manage to recreate origin of life one day..

Here’s the thing. Scientists do these things by studying existing phenomena and applying it.

If you are not familiar with the concept of a Turing machine, well, upgrade yourself. Nature tend to learn, apply and improve. Hence machine learning and AI concerns.. we kind of know the risks all too well.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Mammal.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

@Mammal

If you are not familiar with the concept of a Turing machine, well, upgrade yourself.

If you have any questions about software development, computer science, or programming, I will be happy to explain.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

@saved  : In response to your reply to my post re your God of the gaps  position. You basically admitted it in your own words. We don’t yet know  how life started – gap in our knowledge – into which you insert God.  You argue only an “intelligent mind” can do something like that. Then  you go on about science having never demonstrated anything. Well..  neither have we ever seen intelligent minds creating life.. so there is  that.

Science has demonstrated that the building blocks of life can come  into existence by virtue of natural processes, fwiw totally exotic  matter has been created by controlling quantum effects. So by now we  know that this is how particles, molecules, atoms are formed. We also  know some very extraordinary chemical reactions are driven by quantum  tunneling. So if we reduce life to its building blocks, we are able to  deduce that a range of natural processes probably started all that.

1) first of all:

– into which you insert God.

I did not insert God, this is false.

2) second:

You argue only an “intelligent mind” can do something like that.

No, I did not argue this. I said that most theist ague this. And if you read my post properly, you would not have skipped the part where I said that I think life has always existed, that it was never created on earth at all.

3) third you admit that intelligent minds can not create life:

neither have we ever seen intelligent minds creating life.

So, there is no evidence that life was created on earth at all.

In other words, it is just as likely that life came to earth, or that it is a force of some kind, that is outside of the physical. It could be quantum entangled between the physical body and a soul or spirit that is in some other dimension.

It could be that life came to earth inside some meteorite.

There are all kinds of stuff that is just as likely as anything you have suggested. My position is that life has always existed. There is nothing to indicate a beginning. It seem to have been on erath, even before the world was livable. The conditions for life was not ideal when life must have started, if ever it started. It was extreme and nothing like we know today. Life seem to be this thing, that just pops out of conditions and a “climate” where nothing should life what so ever. It seems to be unstoppable.

So the fact that it does not start and start all over the place all the time, seems very strange and impossible. Life has one beginning, and not thousands or millions. Had it been something that can start under right conditions, it would have done just that. But it did not. It only came in to existence one single time, and then for billions of years, it just evolved – and was never created again.

Obviously this is nonsense. If life ever started on its own, it would not have happened just one time. We would have had many situations where life started. In many places. Today’s life forms, if ever they could evolve from the first life form, would have evolved from multiple first life – and not just one.

Saying that only this one individual, billions of year ago, that was the first life form on earth, is the one that everything comes from, is utterly nuts. Life would have evolved in to different species, and then new first life would have formed, and this would have happened again, and then it would have started another set ot new life, that evolved in to new species and so on. But I am not agruing that this happened, Im just saying that if ever, there was a way life would start, it could not have happened to just one individual that then evolved in to all these new species. It would have happened many times.

So, this is not possible, because we have only one beginning. And we know from nature, that that is not how nature works. Nature makes trillions of beginning all day long.

So, I am NOT claiming any god in the gaps, and I am not arguing God must have created life, because only an intelligence mind could have done it. Those are christian or theist views. I believe that life must have existed already, and have always been here. There simply is no possible way that it was created, and must therefor always have existed. Like gravity, or water, or the sun for that matter.

And that makes me wonder what life really is? since it must have been here always. How could that be, when the earth was not liveable even in the beginning. How can life have been here? What is life? Is it some kind of force that inserts itself in to matter and makes it in to living organisms? Is it something that connects via som quantum entanglement magic, from some other dimension and creates a body for itself ? I have no clue what it is. But it is much more likely that the explanation lies in us not understanding what life is, than that it is something that started from nothing, by nothing.

[Poul]

I believe that life must have existed already, and have always been here. There simply is no possible way that it was created, and must therefor always have existed. Like gravity, or water, or the sun for that matter.

And that makes me wonder what life really is? since it must have been here always. How could that be, when the earth was not liveable even in the beginning. How can life have been here? What is life? Is it some kind of force that inserts itself in to matter and makes it in to living organisms? Is it something that connects via som quantum entanglement magic, from some other dimension and creates a body for itself ? I have no clue what it is. But it is much more likely that the explanation lies in us not understanding what life is, than that it is something that started from nothing, by nothing.

Are you serious? I gave you the Wikipedia article on abiogenesis. Did you read it?

No, life wasn’t created, we agree on that. But no one has argued that it started from nothing. You may have no clue what it is, but where is the evidence that it could not have come about by natural means?

And, if you don’t believe evolution can account for the evolution of humans (and all the rest of the zoo) from earlier species, you need to present a plausible alternative to the origin of the species. That’s how science progresses. Not by making unfounded assertions like “it must have been here always” and asking lots of questions that only reveal your utter and inexcusable ignorance.

[Mammal]

@saved : I’ll have to go back to your post that I was responding to in order to see if and why I misunderstood you.

But, the whole physics picture of the universe that we have contains only the 4 forces gravity, the weak force, electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force with together with the fundamental particles that later formed molecules and atoms. These explain EVERYTHING the universe is made up of. And as I said it also explains the building blocks of what would become life (which we is a clearly defined concept).

And all the evidence DOES point to a universal ancestor, something that all living things on Earth evolved from. It is not nonsensical, these are the facts as we currently understand the evidence.

And there are good reasons to accept that there might have been a particular stage, a window of opportunity, in our solar system evolution where the entropy/information interaction and the environment became ripe for life to form naturally, which is why it won’t continue to happen (your idea about this really does not makes sense for a great many reasons already explained to you).

So life starting at some place and time in our history, and for life on Earth to have evolved from a common ancestor are best explanations backed by lots of evidence.

Your reasons for not accepting it are uninformed. Your counter suggestion entirely made-up and untestable, it seems.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Mammal.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

@saved : I’ll have to go back to your post that I was responding to in order to see if and why I misunderstood you. 

Very good, thanks for that effort.

But, the whole physics picture of the universe that we have contains  only the 4 forces gravity, the weak force, electromagnetic force, the  strong nuclear force with together with the fundamental particles that  later formed molecules and atoms. These explain EVERYTHING the universe  is made up of. And as I said it also explains the building blocks of  what would become life (which we is a clearly defined concept).

We do not know for sure that there is only these forces. “Life”, or some other spiritual force, could very well be an additional “element” in this picture. Life could be, something that is not built by these other forces, but something that exist in its own right. We have no prove that life, started at any point. Everyting, including Darwins writings, suggest that life seem to have been here, “from the beginning”, and simply evolve. (im not getting in to the debate about creating new species)

And all the evidence DOES point to a universal ancestor, something  that all living things on Earth evolved from. It is not nonsensical,  these are the facts as we currently understand the evidence.

Correct! All the evidence points to a universal ancestor, something that all living things on Earth evolved from. This is absolutely a fact. But that this universal ancestor was created on earth, by itself, from nothing, is a very strange fairy tale, that there is no evidence of, what so ever.

It is also a fact that there is no evidence that species evolved “in sequence”, one from the other. There is NOTHING to prove this. In fact, there is lots of evidence, to suggest that many lifeforms have showed up, completely out of this sequence, something that Darwin also scratches his head over.

And there are good reasons to accept that there might have been a  particular stage, a window of opportunity, in our solar system evolution  where the entropy/information interaction and the environment became  ripe for life to form naturally, which is why it won’t continue to  happen (your idea about this really does not makes sense for a great  many reasons already explained to you).

In theory, this could be possible, but the fact that science is unable to create any such invironment, and to create life – proves that this is very unlikely. Extremely unlikely, actually. So unlikely, that we can safely say that it could not have happened.

So life starting at some place and time in our history, and for life  on Earth to have evolved from a common ancestor are best explanations  backed by lots of evidence.

No, you have no evidence that life started in our history – nothing, what so ever. That life evolived, is clear as mud – but there is no evidence that it evolved in sequence, and that one species leads to another.

Your reasons for not accepting it are uninformed. Your counter suggestion entirely made-up and untestable, it seems.

You are free to deny what I say, but I am not claiming anything actually. You should understand that by now. I am simply telling you, that YOU are the one claiming something, and I am the one telling you that the evidence you THINK exist for your claim, simply does not exist. It is just a theory, and a very weak one.

All we know, is that life exist. And we have no plausible explanation for how it came here. Therefor, the most plausible explanation, is that it has always existed, just like gravity or quantum physics. We discover new things all the time, that we did not think existed just a few year ago.

Life might very well be, one of these things.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

Are you serious? I gave you the Wikipedia article on abiogenesis. Did you read it? 

No, life wasn’t created, we agree on that. But no one has argued that  it started from nothing. You may have no clue what it is, but where is  the evidence that it could not have come about by natural means?

And, if you don’t believe evolution can account for the evolution of  humans (and all the rest of the zoo) from earlier species, you need to  present a plausible alternative to the origin of the species. That’s how  science progresses. Not by making unfounded assertions like “it must  have been here always” and asking lots of questions that only reveal  your utter and inexcusable ignorance.

Not at all.

If you tell me that there is flying fryingpan, or a waterbed, hovering over my house, and I look up and can’t see any. I can perfectly well deny that it is a fact, without proving anything other than that there is no evidence of it.

You claim that life was created on earth, and I say that there is no evidence of that. So what is the logic then? It is that you must provide evidence that it was. Not for me to prove that is was not.

You present this fantastic story that life appeared on its own, out of mud billions of years ago. This is a science fiction tail, like some crazy fairy story. And you have no evidence of it, what so ever. NOTHING !

The fact that scientist have not been able to duplicate, something that happened by itself, is plenty evidence that this is nonsense. There is no prove that this could have happened. Just a bunch of things to prove evolution – something we do not disagree on.

The fact that life can be observed, proves that life exist. So, just like other things that we can’t explain how came in to existence, like gravity – we must conclude that it has always existed – because it exist, and have no visible or possible beginning point.

You can choose to believe that God created life, or that life created itself. But there is no evidence for either one of these. The only thing we know for sure, is that life exist, and that it has existed for billions of years.

So the closes possibility, is that it has always existed. And if you want to dispute this, then provide something that proves that life could have been created on earth. And you have given me NOTHING !!

So, until then, the most plausible explanation is that life has always existed, what ever life really is.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other).

[Mammal]

@saved : Turing machine is not only about hard- and software, digital and programming and all that. The concept of a Turing machine is named after what it first achieved, but the concept is regarded by some as a universal mechanism. It is strongly related to the new physics paradigm of information as a key component. And I am thinking that your pet theory, that life is some mystical force out there (reminiscent of the consciousness is fundamental theory), could well be better explained by information being the key to particle / force interactions, and evolution of our cosmos, life included (my link of yesterday refers).

The problem is you are introducing something “spiritual” or mystical that cannot be detected or tested to explain a very scarce commodity in the universe, namely life, when life is already understood as a combination of physical stuff. In other words, it is reducable to known physical components. That is never a good theory. It amounts to wishful thinking because it cannot be tested and verified.

So you can jump up and down and scream in bold letters all you like, but abiogenesis IS the better explanation.

There are not really loopholes in evolution from a common ancestor. You are just asserting ID pseudoscience nonsense.

Information physics, iow that natural stuff interact and evolve based on informationally linked states of affairs is the best explanation for almost everything, including physical components starting to form biological means of transferring information.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

Glad to see that you finally have taken the time to understand my arguments.

I of course agree with you that it is not satisfying in any way, and that it does not offer any answers. But it has at least not grabbed on to straws of fairy tales. It simply states that there is no explanation for the origin of life, yet life exist – therefor life is more likely to have existed from the very beginning – then to have arrived, lets say by aliens or God, or someone else. Because there is no explanation for how it could have been created here, from nothing.

Now, why you are so convinced that life was created by itself, is something that I can not understand. You have given me links, and refereed to some stuff, but I find no evidence in anything you have provided, that makes this likely.

It is a very desperate argument, like: “There has to be an explanation, because life must have been created by itself some how – so it must be true. So therefor, this theory of how it could have happened must be correct.” and then you produce all this so called evidence, desperately explaining how life came in to existence, but just because there is no other alternative.

I am simply saying that I refuse to believe something because there is no alternative. I demand facts, evidence for something that I’m going to believe.

And until there is a dude that can create life, I will have very big problems believing that life “created itself”. There is just no evidence for this. Just theories, that is merely fairy tales.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

@Mammal

Nope ! Turring mashines, is the first computer system, named after a British dude called Alan, that was gay, and ended up being castrated as punishment for practicing homosexuality. He was pardoned by the queen after his death i think (don’t remember details anymore) He committed suicide, if I’m not mistaken, and named the computer he created after a boy he met in school, that he loved dearly all of his life. (Somewhere in the back of my head i think that boys name was Christopher, but that could be wrong) This boy died on day when they were small boys, but lived on in the computer Alan created. The purpose of the computer that he created, was to decode nazi messages during the world war – and has nothing to do with the name Turring. The name, is simply Alans last name: Alan Turring.

So, this is yet another example of how you claim things, and provide articles, but do not take the time to be accurate. Something that we have had problems with in our debates before as well.

I don’t see any problem with not always being able to be accurate, but it become a problem when you claim that your statements are perfect fact. Like you always seem to do.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other).

[Mammal]

@saved : There is much more to Turing machines than that..

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-022-00306-0

And I never claimed life created life. That’s just silly.

Life – as we know it – began when its building blocks combined and started to exhibit biological functioning. See Wikipedia : Life.

nature.com

Turing patterns, 70 years later - Nature Computational Science

On the 70th anniversary of Alan Turing’s seminal paper on morphogenesis, we look back at the history of the paper and its many applications.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

And I never claimed life created life. That’s just silly.

Correct. That is just my caricature of what you said.

You claim that lifes building block combine and exhibit biological functions – all on its own, without anybody or anything making it happen.

And again, referring to a weekipedia article that explains this theory – does not prove anyting – other than the fact that some people, have deperately created a theory to try to deperately explain the impossible.

IT DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING. The article has no evidence for anything, just lots and lots of fairy tale like theories. It is just a large though experiment, and although that is interesting and all – you can not provide it as facts and evidence.

It is just like me telling you, that because all complex things we se in the world today, are made from a mind, there must be a God. Well, that is a theory, but it is not evidence.

You fail to provide any evidence what so ever ! All you are saying, it that life must have come in to existend some billion years ago, but there is no evidence for it. There is no evidence that life can be created what so ever – not back then, and not today !!

[Mammal]

@saved : I only linked the Wiki article to substantiate our understanding of what life is (as opposed to non living things). Nothing more.

Abiogenesis put forward various hypotheses of how that might have happened and there is no reason to think that it is impossible, or that we will never know.

My argument was simply that your pet theory is not a very viable explanation. Maybe think about how the information paradigm adds value to the idea that there is something fundamental about nature that makes life possible.

Right now we are going around in circles and there is no point in further discussions. Thanks.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

@Mammal

Abiogenesis put forward various hypotheses of how that might have  happened and there is no reason to think that it is impossible, or that  we will never know. 

Exactly. various hypotheses of how it might have happened.

YOU are the one, thinking there is no reason to thing that it is impossible. But you are not explaining why in the world you think so. So we are not going in circle, but a straight line, were you provide nothing to back up your claim, that there is no reason to doubt these hypotheses.

My argument was simply that your pet theory is not a very  viable explanation. Maybe think about how the information paradigm adds  value to the idea that there is something fundamental about nature that  makes life possible. 

My explanation is not disputed by anything. There is nothing to indicate that my explanation is impossible. Your on the other hand, has tons of stuff to indicate that it is very unlikely to be possible.

Right now we are going around in circles and there is no point in further discussions. Thanks.

You have ended the discussion, without providing anything, what so ever, to explain how what I’m saying is impossible – and nothing what so ever, to prove that what you have said is possible. All you say, is that you don’t think it is viable. But that is not even an argument.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

You should se the movie: Ex Machina from 2014, a science fiction psychological thriller, written and directed by Alex Garland. There you get a good easy intro to what a turring test is.

Notice, that this is a sci-fi movie, and not a documentary 😜

If you are interested in Alan Turring, you should see the movie: The imitation game, also from 2014, if im not mistaken. Dont remeber the director. This movie also goes in to details on these things.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other).

[Mammal]

@saved : It is obvious by now that nothing that anybody else say will change your mind about your obsession with the idea that life always existed. So it becomes pointless to entertain you further.

It should be obvious by how life is understood and defined (as per Wikipedia) that it is too complex to exist as a fundamental “force” and that by calling it such adds as little value as saying “pixie dust” started life.

I already explained why natural processes (iow abiogenesis) is a far better explanation. I am not going to repeat myself.

Cheers.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

@saved  : It is obvious by now that nothing that anybody else say will change  your mind about your obsession with the idea that life always existed.  So it becomes pointless to entertain you further.

Mind-reading – that is just great. The fact that you entertain only people you intend to change, is interesting. (something I have pointed out earlier)

It should be obvious by how life is understood and defined (as per  Wikipedia) that it is too complex to exist as a fundamental “force” and  that by calling it such adds as little value as saying “pixie dust”  started life.

Again, your argument is: It should be obvious… bla bla Wikipedia

But you are correct, that my idea (from losse brainstorming) that it could be some type of force, is not well formulated, and seem “pixie dust”.

But the topic, is the origin of life, and that is what you are supposed to say something about in this debate. Is it impossible that life always existed – and to this, you have said NOTHING that amounts to anything. So, stop pretending that you are repeating yourself. Not a word, has come from you on this so far.

I already explained why natural processes (iow abiogenesis) is a far better explanation. I am not going to repeat myself.

You have not said a single word, about why it is impossible that life has not been created on earth at all – but for example, have always existed. You have not addressed why you think life must have been created. Why there must have been an abiogenesis at all? My claim is that there might have never been one – and you have not addressed that anywhere, that I can find. Please direct me to the relevant post, if there is any.

So, maybe this is how you debate people, with half an ear open?

I thought you had changed after our last conversation, and actually had started to listen (read) what I’m saying, but I guess you did not. So I agree. No point in further debate.

[Poul]

You really need to understand how science is done. Sometimes there are literally tons of evidence like what paleontology has found to back up the theory of evolution of the species. In other cases, like abiogenesis vs “life must have existed always”, it’s a question of what is more likely. I agree that abiogenesis is somewhat short on hard evidence, but carbon chemistry is very complex and “life must have existed always” is just plain impossible. Cosmologists estimate (based on two separate lines of evidence) that the universe is only around 14 billion years old. The Hubble expansion and the CMB radiation coming equally from all directions is rock solid proof that it was once so hot that atoms like carbon could not have existed. And, as you may be aware, without carbon there could not have been any life as we know it.

As to your flying frying pan analogy, you are probably correct although one could imagine that one flew over your house last night, but you just didn’t see it for either of many possible reasons: You were asleep, you just weren’t looking, your ceiling was blocking your view, it was a dark, moonless night. Or maybe the frying pan was actually a black swan (they kinda look the same and swans really can fly). Just kidding, my point is: We will never be rid of UFO stories and wacky ideas that fly in the face of scientific reason, like “life must have existed always because there is no proof that it arose naturally”. But we can have fun shooting them down.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

@Poul

You really need to understand how science is done. Sometimes there  are literally tons of evidence like what paleontology has found to back  up the theory of evolution of the species. In other cases, like  abiogenesis vs “life must have existed always”, it’s a question of what  is more likely. I agree that abiogenesis is somewhat short on hard  evidence, but carbon chemistry is very complex and “life must have  existed always” is just plain impossible. Cosmologists estimate (based  on two separate lines of evidence) that the universe is only around 14  billion years old. The Hubble expansion and the CMB radiation coming  equally from all directions is rock solid proof that it was once so hot  that atoms like carbon could not have existed. And, as you may be aware,  without carbon there could not have been any life as we know it.

Thanks, so finally we have gotten a bit further. It was about time.

So, the problem with life having always existed, is that life must be “only” biological?

Why?

If you look at DNA, it is a digial form, it coule be represented in computers, it could be hammered in stone. It could be in steal. You can literally put DNA in to a computer, and we program lifeforms with it.

You say,: “life as we know it”, and I think that is a very important thing to keep in mind.

Also, we do in fact not really know what life is, or if it has other dimension than what we see in the biological life form that it occupies. So not only could life have preexisted in different materials, but it could also have preexisted and still exist, in other dimensions.

I have earlier played with the idea that life is or has some type of force. In other words, that life is something outside of the biological mass that is the life form.

So, lets say that you are body, and a spirit/soul. The soul exist in addition to the body, and the two are connected. You need a body, and when you are born, you enter a body. When you die, you leave the body.

Why is this not possible? Why is it not possible, that the soul/spirit, of what we call life, has existed always, and when conditions on earth, became such that we could have a body, that is just what we were able to get. And so, we, the sould/spirit, is what caused the various things that was combined to form a biological vessel for us.

This could be how life entered earth. Either that it started out in some other materials, or that it came in through another dimension – a spirit or soul type thing.

This is just brain storming, and there are many such ideas that could be explored, as to why or how a “spiritual life” or what ever you want to call it, has existed always, but that it was able to become physical on earth, when conditions made that possible?

One of these types of ideas, could be possible? Of why could it not ?

As to your flying frying pan analogy, you are probably correct  although one could imagine that one flew over your house last night, but  you just didn’t see it for either of many possible reasons: You were  asleep, you just weren’t looking, your ceiling was blocking your view,  it was a dark, moonless night. Or maybe the frying pan was actually a  black swan (they kinda look the same and swans really can fly). Just  kidding, my point is: We will never be rid of UFO stories and wacky  ideas that fly in the face of scientific reason, like “life must have  existed always because there is no proof that it arose naturally”. But  we can have fun shooting them down.

If you find a wrist watch in the center of an oak tree when chopping it down, and making a table, you will not assume that it made itself in there from nothing do you? You have two possibility, where the only one logical is that it hang around the sprout and grew in to the trunk and has always been in the tree. (unless God put it in there)

The comparison is, that if something has no way of getting in, and in spite of this, is inside there, it must have always been there. (because we don’t believe in God putting it there do we?)

The same if you crack open a stone, and find a cold ring inside the stone. It could not have gotten in there by being inserted in some way, so it must have been there from the beginning.

So unless you can show me, that life can be created, (because life exist) – it must have always been here.

You claim that it is possible, that life did start, etc etc – but have no answer to why it can not be created – at least in a lab.
So if you want to tell me what other options there are, I’m listening – because if you deny my suggestion, there is only God left.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other).

[Johan]

Can you show us any examples of life that are non-biological? If you can, that would be a great step to convincing us of your view.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

Can you show us any examples of life that are non-biological? If you 
can, that would be a great step to convincing us of your view.

There is a difference between raising questions, and trying to convince someone of my view.

[Mammal]

LOL

[Johan]

So, you can’t then? I guess that settles that for me then.

If we have no evidence for non-biological life existing or even being possible, then I see no reason to accept that it does, or could exist.

Since that is the case, the building blocks for biological life did not exist in the early universe, so therefore biological life did not exist in the early universe.

Since biological life did not exist in the early universe and it is the only life we know of, then no life existed in the early universe.

I don’t see a problem with that reasoning, do you?

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Johan.

[Poul]

Bio means life, so what does non-biological life even mean?

[Poul]

@saved :The main reason no one has created life in the lab is because we don’t know how it happened in nature. But that doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen in nature. Also, nature had the advantage of time over potential lab tests. Something that happens on the average once in a million years, may still have a good chance of happening if you can afford to wait 5 million years. Scientists can not.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Poul.

[Johan]

I somewhat agree with saved. Abiogenesis is a different field of study than evolution. Just because the latter has been proven, it doesn’t imply that the former has. From what I understand though, there have been massive improvements in abiogenesis recently. My problem is that it is verry technical and tends to go over my head when people talk about organic chemistry at that level. I would look into the youtube channel “professor Dave explains ” if you want to learn more.

The second part is that people are misunderstanding your use of “saved” since it implies things about Christian doctrine. It is exactly like how Satanists use the Christian words and imagery for dramatic effect. It works for the point but causes confusion. It is also strange to me that you reject the Christian God yet accept parts of the Bible as authoritative.

Finally, you call atheism an evil, but I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. How can not accepting a claim ever be evil?

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

I somewhat agree with saved. Abiogenesis is a different field of  study than evolution. Just because the latter has been proven, it  doesn’t imply that the former has. From what I understand though, there  have been massive improvements in abiogenesis recently. My problem is  that it is verry technical and tends to go over my head when people talk  about organic chemistry at that level. I would look into the youtube  channel “professor Dave explains ” if you want to learn more.

The second part is that people are misunderstanding your use of  “saved” since it implies things about Christian doctrine. It is exactly  like how Satanists use the Christian words and imagery for dramatic  effect. It works for the point but causes confusion. It is also strange  to me that you reject the Christian God yet accept parts of the Bible as  authoritative.

Finally, you call atheism an evil, but I have no idea how you reached  that conclusion. How can not accepting a claim ever be evil?

I apologize for the use of the word evil. It did not translate well in to english. I used it in a less direct mening – not refering to evil as in the devil. But more as in, the “root of all evil is money”, meaning that it has bad stuff or consequenses connected to it. So – again, Im sorry for the use of the word evil, that was very wrong of me.

Atheism is not “evil”, in the correct understanding of the word.

What i mean, is that religions, all the way back to vikings that forced people to become christians by the sward, and cut the head of people that refused, to the catholics that killed countless muslims in the crusades etc etc to all other belief systems – have a lot of bad things connected to them.

But that is just the minor part, and not so important part of the meaning I was wrongly putting in to the english word evil.

My main point is, that it blocks the mind, or limits the thinking, reason and freedom.

You said:

How can not accepting a claim ever be evil?

And that depends on the belief system that makes you reject it, or not accept it.

You seem to claim that atheism is not a belief system, but that is where you are wrong. If you do not belive in anything, you also do not reject anything. Rejecting something, is always believing something.

If you truly were – what you claim to be – you would be completely open to christianity, to islam, to what I believe in, and what ever else – because you would not have rejected anything.

And as soon as you do, you have a belief.

Sorry – but that is just a fact.

[Johan]

I do have beliefs about Christianity and Islam, but those beliefs were formed based on evidence and not on my atheism. Likewise, my atheism is also a conclusion that was reached due to evidence. It is not a belief system, but a recognition of the fact that I no longer accept the unsubstantiated claims of religions that a god exists.

I don’t see how that recognition blocks the mind or limits thinking, reason or freedom. Perhaps you could elaborate ? I think you might be mistaken regarding what atheism entails.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

I do have beliefs about Christianity and Islam, but those beliefs  were formed based on evidence and not on my atheism. Likewise, my  atheism is also a conclusion that was reached due to evidence. It is not  a belief system, but a recognition of the fact that I no longer accept  the unsubstantiated claims of religions that a god exists.

I don’t see how that recognition blocks the mind or limits thinking,  reason or freedom. Perhaps you could elaborate ? I think you might be  mistaken regarding what atheism entails.

Exactly. You are atheist becuase your belife, that you say was based on evidence, led you to such belif. So you are not contractifing my claim. I am simply saying that athism is not the absanese of belife, but a spesific set of belives. And you are agreeing with this, only objecting to what the belives are and where they come from – something that is irrelevant for my argument.

You have belives, that is all. And those stop you from from beliveing other things, so you are just like a christian or what ever else, that belives in something. Becuase you can not say that you know God does not exist. You belive it. You can not say that there is evidence that he does not exist. Because there is none. There is more evidence for it, than against it. It is the mere absense of evidence that make an atheis belive what he does, and that is a fait. Not something that is formed by evidence, but by the lack of it.

[Johan]

That’s not what I said. My atheism is a conclusion drawn from the data, not a belief I hold. You say that atheism is a “set of beliefs”, but you are not an atheist yourself. You chastise me for speaking against Christianity even though I am no longer a Christian, but you have no problems with speaking about atheism even though you are not an atheist. Again it seems to be a double standard.

For many specific God claims like most forms of Christianity and Islam, I have direct arguments against them. I can say that I know that those specific conceptions of God do not exist. The problem with atheism being defined as the positive belief that “no god exists”, is that it is un tenable in that form. Some people believe that the sun is God and I believe the sun exists, so necessarily I believe that specific version of God exists, I just don’t think that the sun ought to have the label of God applied to it.

When it comes to some conceptions of God, they are literally impossible to prove false (they are unfalsifiable). Are you insisting that I must claim to have falsified the unfalsifiable before I can claim to be an atheist? If so, they you are starting by defining atheism as a contradiction and starting by defining atheism as impossible. Do you think this is reasonable? I don’t think that it is. As such, I don’t define atheism in that way. I define atheism as anyone who does not hold the positive claim that a God does exist. That definition is much more coherent, don’t you think?

Finally, notice how we have completely derailed from the discussion about evolution and now are completely focused on me defending my atheism, which was never the topic of discussion on this thread?

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

Yes, you are correct. This is derailing, and because you seem to deny your own arguments, that obviously makes it hard to stay on track.

You have provided arguments against God being the sun, and you have provided, in other posts, arguments against Christianity as religion. But that is not being an atheist. An atheist is not against Christianity, but believes there is nothing what so ever.

So having arguments saying that this and that makes it impossible that god is real, is just absurd. Evil etc. or how God can not be this way or that way, and therefor he does not exist etc, is all arguments against Christianity or a specific version of religion. Not for atheism.

An atheist, claime that there is no God. And what have you observed to prove that?

You have not seen anything to prove that. You simply base it on a lack, or absence of God. And because that is not an evidence what so ever – any opinion or belief you connect to it, is not based on an observation of something, or the evidence of something, but on the absence of anything.

So you have a belief that is not anchored on evidence, or anything observable, and that is equal to a person saying that I believe in God, even though I can not see anything, of know anything. I simply have faith that there is a God – because there must be something – even though I can not prove it.

So, do us a favor, and just agree that atheism is a faith or belief, and we are done.

But you will not, and that is the firmest evidence. Because it is so emotional to you, that you have to refuse this, because it makes you uncomfortable to be put in the same category as other believers. (at least that is what most atheist I have talked to have admitted to me)

So it is emotional and not rational. Your belief is so strong, that your brain is not even allowed to admit this simple fact about Atheism. It is like a defeat, if you were to admit that it is a belief, and that shows in what part of your brain this is located. It is not in the logical and rational part of your brain at all – like you think. Is is in the faith based center of stuff, where you have mobilized this explanation.

But if you don’t agree, that is fine. I have no need to convince you – so we can just agree to disagree. No need to discuss this further, I have said what I can add to the topic, and you are free to reject it all you want. But this is why I said I am saved, because I am no longer stuck in this faith bases stuff, where I have to refuse the existence of god, that you constantly struggle with, or defend that he does not exist. I also do not have to struggle with defending Christianity and other things humans have created.

[Johan]

Yes, I argue against Christianity being true because I believe it to be false. I don’t deny that, so I am confused again. An atheist does not believe that “there is nothing what so ever”. That is a false statement.

“An atheist, claims that there is no God. And what have you observed to prove that?”

A strong atheist makes that claim, but not all atheists do. Over the years though I’ve gained sympathy for that position. I guess if I am pined down, my reasoning would be along the following lines:

1) For any X, if that X does not have sufficient warrant for belief, then it can be said that X does not exist
2) No God or gods have sufficient warrant for belief.
3) Therefore it can be said that God or gods exist do not exist.

Is that sufficient for you to understand my position? In common speech, we often say that things like unicorns or elves do not exist despite not having any strong case for their non existence. We say this confidently though because there has been no strong case made for their existence. God / gods are the same.

In the later paragraph, you are saying something to the effect of (paraphrasing here) “You haven’t observed X not existing, therefore you can’t say it doesn’t exist”. Do you not see how that is backwards? You can never observe the non-existence of something that is just impossible. There are other ways to demonstrate that something likely doesn’t exist though. The absence is evidence is evidence of absence where evidence ought to be expected. If I tell you that I have an elephant in my yard and you check my yard but don’t see it, then the absence of the evidence of the elephant is evidence for it not being there. (Sorry that might have been a little confusing the way that I wrote that)

There are many things I observe about reality that run contrary to many if not all of the Gods that have been proposed. The problem of Evil for example demonstrates one such contradiction. In this case, my observations are my evidence. However, like I said before, it is literally impossible to observe the non-existence of something, so I am really confused by your point.

I do hold axiomatic beliefs though. I hold that reality is real. This is something that I hold to, but have absolutely no evidence for. This belief is held practically because without it, we cannot say anything about anything. Also, everyone, even theists, must equally hold to this belief, so we are all equal.

I also hold to the uniformity of nature, that today will be like yesterday and tomorrow will be like today. I will also admit that this is an assumption on my part. It is supported buy literally all of the data we have available to us, but it is still an inductive conclusion and is possibly subject to being shown to be wrong. But again, like above, this induction must be held by literally everyone else too, so again, we are all in the same boat.

Please, please note though that those beliefs are not equal to my atheism. I could easily hold those beliefs and not be an atheist, and likewise, I could be an atheist and not hold those beliefs (I could be a hard solopist).

It is also really strange to me, so I will point it at out again, that earlier you railed against me for criticizing Christianity, but now you keep claiming to understand atheism better than someone who actually holds that as an identifier. Do you not see the contradiction there?

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

@Johan

Every person has “consciousness”, or “soul”, or a “sense of self” or what ever it is that you call, what is you. And this brings every human to a need for understanding of what we are, and how we came in to existence, ans what happens when we die.

If you claim that you have no such feelings, then sure – you can say that atheist do not believe anything. They just don’t have any believes.

But we all know, that no humans, go through life, without struggling with these questions. We also know, that every human, has created some explanation for themselves – to combat, or defend against these overwhelming and frightening questions.

So – in short. To say that you have not created any belief within yourself, of any kind, that you atheism is completely free from any type of faith based believe, is simply contradicting everything we know about human behaviour and needs.

[Johan]

I don’t have those feelings. I don’t have a need to understand how we came into existence or what happens after we die. The latter is because I don’t believe anything happens after we die. We cease to exist. What happens to windows when you shut off the computer and erase the hard drive. It is simply gone, just like how we are once our brain goes dark. But that doesn’t mean that I do not have any beliefs, just not those ones.

“But we all know, that no humans, go through life, without struggling with these questions.”

No, we don’t know that. There are people who exist who haven’t struggled with them, nor find them overwhelming and frightening.

“So – in short. To say that you have not created any belief within yourself, of any kind, that you atheism is completely free from any type of faith based believe, is simply contradicting everything we know about human behavior and needs.”

Ah, I see what you’re doing now. You are confusing all of my beliefs with my beliefs that are derived from my atheism. I will agree with you, and have agreed with you, that I do hold beliefs, I hold many of them, and some of then are even unsupported. When I discover the unsupported beliefs though, I try my best to discard them wherever possible. (there are a few that I pragmatically hold as axioms though, as I eluded to above).

Where the disconnect appears to be happening is that you are saying those are my beliefs that are part of my atheism. They are not. They are beliefs that I hold and I am an atheist. They are parallel, but not causal to my atheism. It isn’t like Christianity where once you accept Christianity you then accept a whole batch of Dogma that goes along with it. Atheism is merely the answer to one and only one question. Everything else is tangential to it and has no direct connection. I don’t believe the universe is 14 billion years old because of my atheism. I don’t believe in plate techniques because of my atheism. I don’t believe in evolution because of my atheism. I believe in evolution and I am an atheist.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

@Johan

I don’t have those feelings. I don’t have a need to understand how we  came into existence or what happens after we die. The latter is because  I don’t believe anything happens after we die. We cease to exist. What  happens to windows when you shut off the computer and erase the hard  drive. It is simply gone, just like how we are once our brain goes dark.  But that doesn’t mean that I do not have any beliefs, just not those  ones.

“But we all know, that no humans, go through life, without struggling with these questions.”

No, we don’t know that. There are people who exist who haven’t struggled with them, nor find them overwhelming and frightening.

You have created some explanation that life is like windows. You have no evidence of this, and you can not claim that you believe that nothing happens after death because you don’t believe in anything. Because your soul is going to stop existing, and that is scary for every single child, and it was for you as well. So you are either different from all the other 8 billion people on earth, or your are not honest with yourself. (based on what most psychologist say). You did, at some point, create a belief, to deal with it, and yours was to convince yourself, and to clam down your fear – with this explanation that life is like windows.

Death is to turn of Windows, and there is nothing. In spite of the fact that you yourself, feel eternal. You are something more than just a computerprogram, and you can feel it in every cell of your body.

So, when you later found this label – atheist – you said it was a good fit for you. And then you started to tell people that you did not believe in anything. But you had already created yourself a belief. Ant that is just like the Christians do. They need something to calm down these feelings.

“So – in short. To say that you have not created any belief within  yourself, of any kind, that you atheism is completely free from any type  of faith based believe, is simply contradicting everything we know  about human behavior and 
needs.”

As I have stated already in less words.

Ah, I see what you’re doing now. You are confusing all of my beliefs  with my beliefs that are derived from my atheism. I will agree with you,  and have agreed with you, that I do hold beliefs, I hold many of them,  and some of then are even unsupported. When I discover the unsupported  beliefs though, I try my best to discard them wherever possible. (there  are a few that I pragmatically hold as axioms though, as I eluded to  above). 

Your beliefs are established when you are very young.

Where the disconnect appears to be happening is that you are saying  those are my beliefs that are part of my atheism. They are not. They are  beliefs that I hold and I am an atheist. They are parallel, but not  causal to my atheism. It isn’t like Christianity where once you accept  Christianity you then accept a whole batch of Dogma that goes along with  it. Atheism is merely the answer to one and only one question.  Everything else is tangential to it and has no direct connection. I  don’t believe the universe is 14 billion years old because of my  atheism. I don’t believe in plate techniques because of my atheism. I  don’t believe in evolution because of my atheism. I believe in evolution  and I am an atheist.

Atheism is just a label. It is the one closest to what you believe, but it can not take away your beliefs, no matter how much you argue that it can – or that you don’t have any.

You have no explanation for the things you as a chils was terrified of, that all children one day become terrified of. The awakening, and realization that we are going to die, and the questions that follow. We are born afraid. It is part of our most important “neurological and psychological system”. We are whirred that way. So you are just the same.

Up until a few hundred year ago, mot people had only the explanations to calm themselves down, found in religions. Then we invented atheism, that serves the same purpose.

And if you were not struggling with these questions, you would not be in this forum at all.

[Johan]

No, it wasn’t scary for me. I have never had a fear of death. Also, we have mountains of evidence that indicates that nothing happens to us after we die. All of the available evidence points to the fact that all of my personality exists within my brain. When you alter my brain, you alter my personality. There is nothing left apart from that that could possibly be me and still exist. Thoughts, memories, personality, likes, and dislikes, everything is in my brain. When we die, our synapses die too (brain death), and those parts of us are lost. This is why we cannot resuscitate people after being without oxygen for a length of time. Their brain has died, and thus they are gone. This isn’t me just pulling thing out of my butt, this is based on all of the available neuro science.

If that makes me odd, then fine, I am odd, but my experience with life has shown me that there are others like me. It has also shown me that anyone making blanket universal statements like the ones you’ve made here are usually wrong.

The “windows” this was an analogy to help you understand my view better.

I don’t feel eternal. I don’t feel it in every cell in my body. I feel mortal. I know I will die one day, like everyone else does.

Yes, I found the label – atheist – and yes I thought it was a good fit for me. An atheist is someone who doesn’t believe a God exists and I don’t believe a God exists, so the label is a perfect fit. I’ve never told anyone that I don’t believe in anything though, so I don’t know why you would say that I’ve told people that.

“As I have stated already in less words.”

You didn’t state it in less words, those were literally your exact words I quoted.

“Your beliefs are established when you are very young.”

Some, yes, but not most.

Yes, atheism is a label. It just describes one position I hold on a single question. Nothing more. I have other labels that describe other aspects of my beliefs. I am a left leaning centrist. I accept large portions of humanism. I have many other beliefs that are described by many other labels, but the atheist label only tells you one thing about me and nothing more.

As I said, I’ve never had an existential fear of death, so your words don’t describe me. Please stop speaking for me, it is making you look bad. I a was also never terrified of things as a child. I was scared of authority figures, or public speaking, but I don’t see what that has to do with anything. But being scared is not the same as being terrified or having a phobia.

We did not invent atheism to “calm ourselves down”. Where on earth would you get that idea? If anything atheism breaks all of the false promises of religion to remove the fear. Atheism is the condition of not being convinced that a god exists. Nothing more. At best all it could possibly do is remove the fear that a God would punish you for something since an atheist doesn’t believe a God exists (although some atheists continue to fear hell for decades after becoming atheists)

I am in this form to have interesting discussions with others. To learn and grow from conversation. Since being here, my communication skills have improved as have my interpersonal skills. I don’t come here because of an existential fear of death. Again, please stop pretending you know me and my thoughts, it is making you look bad.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

To many things are repeated over and over – but f.eks.

Yes I am disrespectful of bad ideas. I don’t think anyone should ever 
blindly respect an idea merely b3cause someone else holds it.

This is the exact quot from you, nothins is changed. Copied directly from your posts. Here you are using the word “I am disrespectful” – not, this “difference” that you claim there was. You did not say that you did not show respect, you said that: you (activiely) disrespect.

You are in other words flat out lying ! But you are just repeating the same falsehood over and over.

As far as all this about putting words in your mouth: I said that, unless you are different from the other 8 billion, in other words, not claiming that you are like what I said. I then said that psychologist claim. In other words, It is not my claim that most people feel this way, but something that has been stated by pshychologist about most children.

So again, it is not i that put words in to your mout – but the oposit. YOU LIE again and again. but then again, you don have to respect people by f.eks making more of an effort to being honest with what they say.

You know, it is disrespectful, to most people to be accused with false statements.

We – most of us – and Im sure you are different than everybody else on this matter as well, so I will not include you. But most people consider such accusations as very disrespectful.

And to be direct with you, I have lost count of how many times you have flat out lied to me in these posts. And that also is disrespectful. Not saying that you fail to show respect, but that you actively disrespect someone by lying to them. Example above, is traceable to your posts, so don’t just start another lie to get yourself out of this one.

[Johan]

“<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”Courier New, courier, Lucida Sans Typewriter, Lucida Typewriter, monospace”>Yes I am disrespectful of bad ideas.”</font>
<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”Courier New, courier, Lucida Sans Typewriter, Lucida Typewriter, monospace”>You just quote mined me and only took the first part of this sentence to claim that I said I am disrespectful to people. You are either quote mining or you are equivocating, but both are </font><font face=”Courier New, courier, Lucida Sans Typewriter, Lucida Typewriter, monospace”>fallacies</font><font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”Courier New, courier, Lucida Sans Typewriter, Lucida Typewriter, monospace”>.</font>

<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”Courier New, courier, Lucida Sans Typewriter, Lucida Typewriter, monospace”>Please do better if you want to accuse me of lying.</font>

<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”Courier New, courier, Lucida Sans Typewriter, Lucida Typewriter, monospace”>“</font><font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>but something that has been stated by </font>psychologist<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> about most children.”</font>
<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>Do you have the reports to back this up? If not I am skeptical of your understanding of the study given your track record here.

“</font>We – most of us – and Im sure you are different than everybody else on this matter as well, so I will not include you. But most people consider such accusations as very disrespectful.”

<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>Yet, you have constantly been doing it to me over and over. Is it ok for you to be </font>disrespectful <font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>of me? Or are you justified </font>because<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> you believe the statements you are making about me are true, so therefore not disrespectful?
</font>

“And to be direct with you, I have lost count of how many times you have flat out lied to me in these posts. And that also is disrespectful. Not saying that you fail to show respect, but that you actively disrespect someone by lying to them. Example above, is traceable to your posts, so don’t just start another lie to get yourself out of this one.”<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>
</font>

Show me one case of where I have lied?

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

Your said that, I claimed that you said that you are disrespectful, but that you did not say that, but that you actually said you did not show respect. So I gave you an example of this, and you said that that was also wrong.

That is two lies, right there.

Both my statements were 100% what you said, and you denied both of them, and that is false. In other words, 2 lies. But it is not my job to be your “accountant”. You should keep track of your lies yourself.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other).

[Johan]

I think we are done here. If you are willing to directly quote mine me and then when I point it out, you double down on it and continue to accuse me falsely, I have nothing more to say to you.

I’ve tried, but it isn’t worth either of our time anymore to continue having discussions if they will be like this. I am bowing out from responding to you for now.

EDIT: BTW The formatting tags that just randomly appear in the posts lately are quote annoying, and I am not going through the work of removing them to make the post easier to read….. I really don’t like some parts of this new redesign.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Johan.

[Poul]

We, the atheists, hold the view that “God” does not play a role in the origin of life, because we don’t believe that “God” exists. More correctly, there is no “God” in our ontology, or in other words: we don’t believe there is anything that we might call God. You (@saved) are free to call such an ontology a “belief system” if it makes you happy, but it won’t get you any friends among atheists.

Some atheists go into the science of biology, and some of those try to understand how life could have emerged from non-life. It’s the area of biology called Abiogenesis and yes, it is separate from the area of biology called evolution.

@saved you make a big effort explaining what others are wrong in believing on the topic of genesis (origin of life), but little to no time explaining your belief on the subject. What do you call your belief system, where does it originate (did you make it up?), and what is your genesis story?

en.wikipedia.org

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

@Paul

(I will just copy and paste my reply to Johan: )

Every person has “consciousness”, or “soul”, or a “sense of self” or what ever it is that you call, what is you. And this brings every human to a need for understanding of what we are, and how we came in to existence, ans what happens when we die.

If you claim that you have no such feelings, then sure – you can say that atheist do not believe anything. They just don’t have any believes.

But we all know, that no humans, go through life, without struggling with these questions. We also know, that every human, has created some explanation for themselves – to combat, or defend against these overwhelming and frightening questions.

So – in short. To say that you have not created any belief within yourself, of any kind, that your atheism is completely free from any type of faith based believe, is simply contradicting everything we know about human behavior and needs.

[Poul]

I see no reason to further explain my lack of belief in any sort of god, which I call atheism (because that is what the word means).

But I observe that you continue to ignore my suggestion that you explain your origin-of-life story, which would be getting back on topic. I’m assuming that you don’t read Genesis as a historical account, but I could be mistaken. Please enlighten us on your position on the matter.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Poul.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

@Poul

I am not ignoring it. I have explained it, several times. Last time to Mammal just a few minutes ago.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other).

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

@Poul

From Britanica:

atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

In other words, if you an atheist, you deny that there is a God. And for this, you must have a reason, or base it on something. If you are agnostic, you do not deny it, or you leave it open, as there is no evidence either way.

So it is not correct to say that an atheist just has no belief, because that is an agnostic. An atheist, denies God, and must have evidence that God does not exist.

So what is your evidence, or are you really an agnostic?

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other).
• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other).
• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other).

[Poul]

Have you ever heard of the word synonym? The difference between an atheist and an agnostic is subtle:

An agnostic is unconvinced that God exists, but the same is true for an atheist.

An agnostic is unconvinced that God does not exist, while an atheist rejects the arguments/evidence for theism. It is perfectly valid to take that position without actual evidence because no one can say what might constitute evidence against the existence of God.

It’s like belief in the unicorn. An aunicornist (a-unicorn-ist) is a good word for someone who rejects the witness testimonies describing encounters with (or declared belief in) unicorns. He may, not for this but for scientific reasons, take the stand as an expert witness against the existence of unicorns, even though he has no proof that unicorns don’t exist.

Consider the claim that we live in a digital simulation designed by extremely advanced aliens. It’s very unlikely, but you can’t disprove it.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Poul.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

@Poul

If you have a problem with Britannica, then write them an email, and tell them that their article about atheist and agnostics are wrong. Until then, the atheist, is a person that denies the existense of God, and if you deny the existence of something, you must have a reason, or base it on something.

And – finally, unless you are an ostrich – sticking your head in the ground to pretend something does not exist – is not a good argument. God might very well be out there, even though you can not see him. Lots of things exist that we can not see.

In other words, you have not supported the claim that God does not exist, (something you have to, if you are an atheist – unless Britannica is a bunch of morons). And if you don’t, it is wrong of you to call yourself an atheist.

Subtle differences and synonyms? Nonsense!

[Poul]

@saved

Since disproving God’s existence is impossible, all the atheist needs to say is “I’m not convinced”. The agnostic may say exactly the same.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

@saved 

Since disproving God’s existence is impossible, all the atheist needs  to say is “I’m not convinced”. The agnostic may say exactly the same.

I qouted Britanica for you.

It was stated very clearly, that the meaning of the word atheist, is a person that denies the existence of God.

A-THEIST – is AGAINST THEIST BELIEF; meaning, aposed to it, as in knowing that it is wrong. Or beliveing it is wrong.

The agnostic, dot not know. He does not believe. Agnostic, is not having a conviction or belief, for it or against it. But I’m not wasting my time, arguing with people that refuse dictionary definitions of words.

[Johan]

<header>

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheist

atheist

[ ey-thee-ist ]

See synonyms for atheist on Thesaurus.com<hr></header>

noun

1. a person who does not believe in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

2. a person who believes that there is no supreme being or beings.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

atheist noun

athe·​ist ˈā-thē-ist

Synonyms of atheist

: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheist
atheist

noun [ C ]

RELIGIONUK /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/ US /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/

Add to word list

someone who does not believe in any god or gods, or who believes that no god or gods exist:

All of these other dictionaries have it listed as someone who does not believe, not merely someone who rejects.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
1. Definitions of “Atheism”

The word “atheism” is polysemous—it has multiple related meanings. In the psychological sense of the word, atheism is a psychological state, specifically the state of being an atheist, where an atheist is defined as someone who is not a theist and a theist is defined as someone who believes that God exists (or that there are gods). This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists. In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). Thus, to be an atheist on this definition, it does not suffice to suspend judgment on whether there is a God, even though that implies a lack of theistic belief. Instead, one must deny that God exists. This metaphysical sense of the word is preferred over other senses, including the psychological sense, not just by theistic philosophers, but by many (though not all) atheists in philosophy as well. For example, Robin Le Poidevin writes, “An atheist is one who denies the existence of a personal, transcendent creator of the universe, rather than one who simply lives his life without reference to such a being” (1996: xvii). J. L. Schellenberg says that “in philosophy, the atheist is not just someone who doesn’t accept theism, but more strongly someone who opposes it.” In other words, it is “the denial of theism, the claim that there is no God” (2019: 5).

Even Stanford recognizes this distinction between different usages of the term. The main point is that it is not as cut and dry as simply citing a dictionary and being done with it. Also, words are descriptive, not prescriptive and definitions and meanings change as usages change (as Stanford points out in the article).

I would personally rather argue about concepts rather than words, so if it makes it easier, just call me an agnostic and move on, even though I actively believe that the Christian God does not exist.

dictionary.com

Atheist Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

Atheist definition, a person who does not believe in the existence of a supreme being or beings. See more.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

 In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of 
religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the 
proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the 
proposition that there are no gods). Thus, to be an atheist on this 
definition, it does not suffice to suspend judgment on whether there is a
 God, even though that implies a lack of theistic belief. Instead, one 
must deny that God exists. This metaphysical sense of the word is 
preferred over other senses, including the psychological sense, not just
 by theistic philosophers, but by many (though not all) atheists in 
philosophy as well. For example, Robin Le Poidevin writes, “An atheist
 is one who denies the existence of a personal, transcendent creator of 
the universe, rather than one who simply lives his life without 
reference to such a being” (1996: xvii). J. L. Schellenberg says that 
“in philosophy, the atheist is not just someone who doesn’t accept 
theism, but more strongly someone who opposes it.” In other words, it is
 “the denial of theism, the claim that there is no God” (2019: 5).

This is from your own post.

So what is this forum where we debate? In what context are we talking? We are talking her, in the context, relevant to the exate definition above. So we must assume that when talking in this context, we are referring to the definiton of Atheism, as stated above. So this is hammered in stone, and I am not wasting more time on this.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other).

[Johan]

I see how it is then. Every definition that agrees with you is correct, and every definition that disagrees with you is incorrect. It won’t matter how many other definitions I cite, or the fact that even Stanford says that it has multiple definitions and usages, you will still argue that your understanding is correct and the understanding of those who actually personally use that label is incorrect.

Got it. Don’t know why I even thought otherwise.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

I see how it is then. Every definition that agrees with you is  correct, and every definition that disagrees with you is incorrect. It  won’t matter how many other definitions I cite, or the fact that even  Stanford says that it has multiple definitions and usages, you will  still argue that your understanding is correct and the understanding of  those who actually personally use that label is incorrect. 

Got it. Don’t know why I even thought otherwise.

@Johan

I am correcting myself after what Poul said in his post: October 6, 2023 at 10:03 am, that you can find below, so you are again producing false statements. Poul was the one that brought the correct understanding of this word on the table, not me.

So you just made a another bobo.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other).
• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other).

[Poul]

Merriam-webster has a different definition of atheism:

a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Scientists who study language will tell you that words don’t have intrinsic meaning, they have usage. The “meaning” of a word is defined by its users, and it may change over time and cultures and speakers. You obviously have a different meaning of the word life than I do. I’ve heard people who were unsure whether to call themselves agnostic or atheist. What do you call those people?

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Poul.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

@poul

and if you find some kids dictionary, you might fin even another. But for the debate in this forum, where you are debating, one must apply the definition, relevant to the context. And this is a forum for philosophy, and for apologetics, so you can not drag in some other type of definition of words.

Well, you do it obviously, so you can. But you know that you are wrong, so this is a waste of time.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

Merriam-webster has a different definition of atheism:

a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Scientists who study language will tell you that words don’t have intrinsic meaning, they have usage.  The “meaning” of a word is defined by its users, and it may change over  time and cultures and speakers. You obviously have a different meaning  of the word life than I do. I’ve heard people who were unsure whether to call themselves agnostic or atheist. What do you call those people?

Good, so we finally agree then.

This is a forum for apologetic and philosophy, and the use of the term atheist, int his contexts, is the one I provided. You have consistently provided USAGE of the word, from outside this context.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other).

[Johan]

The relevant context is how the parties in discussion with you are using the term, not your perceived use of the term based on your view of what this message board entails.

[Poul]

@saved:

Good, so we finally agree then.

I don’t think we do. When I use a word, it is I who defines what it means. You may or may not understand it, or you may misunderstand it, but even if the meaning is misunderstood, it is still me, the writer, who knows what I meant when I wrote it. You can’t simply declare yourself the authority on what a word means.

Take the word evolution: It can be used to mean any gradual change, or it can be taken to mean the field of biology that deals with how populations change over many generations.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

@Poul

Ok, so even when I agree with you, you say im wrong

This is fantastic.

🤓

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other).
• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other).
• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other). Reason: removing div tags

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

Merriam-webster has a different definition of atheism:

a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Scientists who study language will tell you that words don’t have intrinsic meaning, they have usage.  The “meaning” of a word is defined by its users, and it may change over  time and cultures and speakers. You obviously have a different meaning  of the word life than I do. I’ve heard people who were unsure whether to call themselves agnostic or atheist. What do you call those people?

@Poul

Perfect, this cleared it up.

Thanks

[Fred]

Saved – I re-read your opening post to this thread, and it appears most of your questions have been answered, although it’s not clear that you accepted any of answers. Could you please describe what (if anything) you’ve learned so far in the course of this discussion?

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

Saved – I re-read your opening post to this thread, and it appears most 
of your questions have been answered, although it’s not clear that you 
accepted any of answers. Could you please describe what (if anything) 
you’ve learned so far in the course of this discussion? 

The opening post, asked for evidence or explanations of how evolution is connected to the origin of species, if ever there is any evidence of this. But the thread has touched on many other related topics. I have learned many things, but from your text, I assume you ask me about the topic of the opening post, and what I have learned related to that, is more limited.

I have not received any clear understanding of how evolution can explain the origin of species. Johan seem to think that it is not directly connected, but I think he was referring to the origin of first life on earth. Others, like Mammal seem to say that it is obvious, but provide no evidence of what they say, and I therefor still do not understand Mammals point. He just repeats that it is obvious and provides Wikipedia. Quantum physics and turring mashines, just dont do it for meg i guess. Evolution is not that complicated. There should be a much simpler explanation, if this is possible.

I do understand the articles you provided, and some of them was helpful – but they were to focused on debunking God in all of this, and this creationist stuff is just not interesting or relevant for me. I can not accept that God has anything to do with it anyway, so it is like kicking in an open door.

I think one problem is about the definition of the opening question. Because in one post it seems like the answer is about the origin of a new species from another, and in a different post, it is about origin of the first life on earth. I thought the opening question was clear enough, but maybe it was not?

But I think I have clarified that evolution is a term that is used wrong by several members of this community. Some include the origin of first life on earth, when they use this term, and others don’t. Some use it to explain changes in species, and some include that new species are created from previous.

The problem with the sequence of species, and how some have existed for millions of years, and therefor must be outside of this sequence, and how other seem to arrive form somewhere outside of the sequence, I have not received any answers at all – from anybody.

What I have landed on, is that the term evolution, is used by most of you, to argue that this process creates new species. But none of you, have provided evidence of this. I have received evidence of many other things I have asked for, but not this. It must be possible for genteic mutaions to alter part of an organism that develop early, if any of this is possible. And nothing I have received from any of you, even touch on the topic.

So to conclude: I am lacking documentation for how million year old species, that look exactly the same today, that they did millions of year ago, are not included in the sequence of species – if all evolve from a previous. And I have not received any documentation about how some species from a specific period in the fossil layers, are more developed than the specie that follow? Should be opposite. Just like there seem to be these enormous jumps in development some times. For eksample (exaggerated for clarity) that the father is a fungus and the baby is a fully developed fish. How did that happen? Also nothing on the gaps in the sequence, other than some strange “mind games” about number.

So, as far as how spontaneous and random gene mutation, can lead to so large changes in a species, that it transformed in to a different species, like from a bird to a cat – I have not received any relevant replies. Let me repeat one more time: The problem is that genetic mutating that happens in parts of an organism that develops early, is almost always deadly, ant nobody in the forum seem to even understand that – and therefor have not provided any relevant reply.

You say that most question have been answers, so I guess i want to know in what post you have found the answers? Because I have not found these posts. Please give me a link.

[Johan]

I see a lot of confusion here, but I am not sure I am the right person to clear this up. The points I see that sound confused to me are:

– A child will almost always be the same species as their parent (On extremely rare occurrences, the mutation can render the child infertile with its own species. In these cases though, since they have no one to mate with, the new species will likely die with them).

– Populations evolve, individuals do not. Evolution is about gene frequency in a population changing over time, so since an individual is not a population, using the term is misleading.

– Evolution does not necessitate constant change. If species X is already the best adapted to its environment and its environment does not change, then there is no selection pressure for X to change. Since there is very little change in the oceans compared to most land biomes, sharks don’t really see much change other than size. They are already apex predators that are really well adapted to their niche. The oceans are also massive too, so change is very minor in the grand scale of things.)

– A new species is delineated from its descendent population due to its inability to successfully interbreed with the descendent population. We have observed this on both islands, where the new population is isolated, or on land where the populations become isolated due to physical barriers. These are called ring species and are typically observed around mountain ranges.

[Mammal]

I think Saved struggles with meanings and definitions, or is just trolling it that way..

I referenced Wiki : Life to let him know what we all mean with “Life”. Up and until we ended our dialogue he seemed to have not understood that part.. Ditto for “atheism”, it seems..

So maybe Saved should state how he understands “Life”…

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

I think Saved struggles with meanings and definitions, or is just trolling it that way..

I referenced Wiki : Life to let him know what we all mean with  “Life”. Up and until we ended our dialogue he seemed to have not  understood that part.. Ditto for “atheism”, it seems..

You enjoy telling others, that I am stupid? Of cours your not saying it directly, just that I am so slow that I don’t understand simple words.

So maybe Saved should state how he understands “Life”…

The debate for the use of the word atheist, is clarified by other poster. I just read the clarification, and he said that it was about USAGE of the word, and context. In relation to philosophy and apologetic, the word atheist, means to deny or actively reject the existence of God. So I was correct. And in an other context or USE of the word, it can carry the meaning of simply not believing the argument that God exist.

This accusation of trolling is just insults, not based in any reality.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other).

[Mammal]

Quote:

“Mammal seem to say that it is obvious, but provide no evidence of what they say, and I therefor still do not understand Mammals point. He just repeats that it is obvious and provides Wikipedia. Quantum physics and turring mashines, just dont do it for meg i guess.”

It all went over your head then..? As I said, the Wiki link to life was to make sure you know what the rest of us are talking about when using the term “life”. Debates fall flat when people talk about different things. This was really straightforward in the manner that I referenced it and how it is explained. It has to tick a few boxes to qualify as the same kind of “life” than what we use to discuss abiogenesis and evolution.

The QM references explain away the natural processes that get us to building blocks of life being formed (fact), for them to chemically interact (based on other similar chemical reactions) to a point of becoming useful “life”-given properties, and to evolve. The theory that I linked that deals with how QM becomes an explanation for biological processes is cutting edge science, hot of the press.

The concept of a Turing machine illustrates that informational states of affairs will tend to self-enhance, to put it in very basic terms, as per the referenced paper.

The Turing effect coupled with QM suffice as an explanation for everything we need to explain the origin of the kind of “life” as we understand “life”.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Mammal.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

what is it, all these links are supposed to explain, in combination?

[Mammal]

And by extension your pet theory is falsified because those same ingredients needed for “life” could not have always existed. They are far too complex and we pretty much know them to be the result of various processes.

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

And by extension your pet theory is falsified because those same 
ingredients needed for “life” could not have always existed. They are 
far too complex and we pretty much know them to be the result of various
 processes.

Are you saying that, what you have labeled as my “pet theory” can not be true, because life need all the “ingredients” that you have shown in the various links?

(I don’t get the last part: “and we pretty much know them to be the result of vaious processes.”)

[Saved (God exist, but i’m not christian/other)]

In other posts about this, it was stated, that life billions of year ago, was different. The temperature was 70 degrees delicious or something extremely hot and life back then, does not resample life today, oxygen etc all was completely different.

Now, why is it – that life could not be so different, that it could have existed before this point in time?

The point being, that life is not restricted to being what it is today. This we know, because life that existed billions of years ago, would not survive int today’s climate, and the opposite.

Just for a thought experiment – brain storming – what if life could survive in space, but had to adapt to the environment on earth gradually over billions of years, until it became this oxygen dependent stuff of today? What if there was life, before, but it had to completely transform to be able to live in the environment on eart that we have today? Maybe life was consuming something completely differnet from oxygen etc. billions of years ago?

How do you know that life was not something totally different before?

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Saved (God exist, but i'm not christian/other).

[Mammal]

@saved : If you argue so strongly against it, why would you ask me such basic abiogenesis questions as if you don’t know? By building blocks I am referring to the macromolecular components and the fundamental elements, by processes I refer to the various reactions and underlying quantum processes that brought about the before-mentioned. But, these are complex processes that would have taken a long time and that would have occurred at a chronologically later stage of the universe.

Do you have a different understanding of what constitute life?

As for your other question, some say that life, at the very least some of the above building blocks, might have formed elsewhere in space in a different environment. But where it happened is a bit besides the point. There are explanations for the processes required for both RNA and DNA origins.

[Poul]

@saved :

When a population (large number of people) migrate away from where it originated, it will start to change, becoming distinct from the people who stayed behind. The first thing that changes is the language: the accent, vocabulary etc. Take the dialects of the United States as an example: Even I as a foreigner can usually tell if an english speaker is from New York or from Texas (not so much as in the seventies, for sure).

The people who migrated may gradually mix with the population already living in the area where they settle. Over perhaps 5 generations, they will no longer speak the same language but fully adopt that of people already living in the place where they settle. Over many generations, new languages emerge, and so mandarin (chinese) is a different language from cantonese.

Physical characteristics change more slowly, but you may have noticed that speakers of indo-european languages have rather similar appearance (except for skin and hair color), be they from Scandinavia or from India. They are clearly more similar than both are to people from China or from southern Africa.

And that’s why Neanderthal people were distinctly different physically from the people who migrated out of Africa much, much later (us). They could still interbreed, though, and they did: Modern europeans typically have a few percent Neanderthal DNA, while people from southern Africa do not (or so I have read). If the first migration out of Africa (that led to Neanderthals) had happened much earlier, Neanderthals and modern humans might have diverged into distinctly different species, unable to interbreed.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Poul.